1 CGHC010146682025 2026:CGHC:41154 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 2699 of 2025 1 - Ashwant Kumar Sahu S/o Mangal Das Aged About 63 Years Occupation Junior Assistant Retired From State Warehousing Corporation Branch Chhuriya, District Rajnandgaon (C.G.) ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - Chhattisgarh State Warehousing Corporation, Through Secretary, Head Office Raipur, District- Raipur (C.G.) 2 - Managing Director Chhattisgarh State Warehousing Corporation, Head Office Sector- 4, Naya Raipur, Atal Nagar, Raipur, District- Raipur (C.G.) 3 - Karmik Prabandhak Chhattisgarh Ware Housing Corporation Raipur District Raipur (C.G.) ... Respondent(s) For Applicant (s) : Mr. Shubham Tripathi, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Mr. Anumeh Shrivastava, Advocate Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board 22.09.2026 1. The present writ petition has been filed seeking for the following relief(s):- 10.1 That, the Hon’ble Court may kindly be quashed impugned order dated 28.03.2025 (Annexure P/1) as well as the impugned show cause notice dated 05.02.2025 (Annexure P/2) and Digitally signed by JYOTI JHA Date: 2026.09.23 10:52:55 +0530 2 pass the appropraite order in favour of the petitioner. 10.2 That, the Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondents to provide the petitioners all his pending retiral dues, at the earliest, in the interest of justice. 10.3 That, any other relief which this Hon’ble Court deems fit and proper may also kindly be granted to the petitioner in the interest of justice. 2. The facts of the case, in brief, are that the petitioner was initially appointed to the post of Chokidar-cum-Hawaldar in the year 1987. Subsequently, he was promoted to the post of Junior Assistant in the year 2018 under the respondents. He was handed over the charge of Branch Manager, Branch Chhuriya, on 18.04.2021. Subsequently, he retired from service on attaining the age of superannuation on 31.03.2025. Prior to his retirement, a show-cause notice dated 05.02.2025 was served upon the petitioner along with the charge- sheet, wherein allegations were levelled to the effect that shortage of food grains was detected at Branch Chhuriya for the period from 19.04.2021 to 21.11.2023 and from 19.03.2024 till the date of his retirement. The petitioner filed a detailed reply to the show-cause notice and denied the allegations levelled against him. The documents reveal that a Committee was constituted prior to issuance of the show- cause notice and the said Committee submitted its report on 30.01.2025, wherein the petitioner was found negligent and a recommendation was made for recovery of an amount of Rs.5,57,045/- from the petitioner. Pursuant to the said report, respondent No.2 issued the order of recovery dated 28.03.2025 (Annexure P/1). The show- cause notice dated 05.02.2025 (Annexure P/2) and the order of recovery dated 28.03.2025 (Annexure P/1) are under challenge in the present petition. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the amount of recovery was assessed by the Committee prior to the issuance of the show-cause notice, and therefore, the order of recovery was premeditated. He would further submit that although the Chhattisgarh Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1966 (for short, “Rules, 1966”) are applicable to the employees of the Chhattisgarh State Warehousing Corporation, no formal enquiry in 3 accordance with Rule 14 of the Rules, 1966 was conducted. Therefore, the order of recovery, though amounting to imposition of a minor penalty, is not sustainable in the eyes of law. He would further submit that the Chhattisgarh State Warehousing Corporation Staff Regulations, 1962 (for short, “Regulations, 1962”) provide for a procedure for imposing penalty, which has also not been followed in the present case. He would further submit that 19 days' leave encashment has also not been paid to the petitioner and, therefore, the petitioner is also entitled to the same. He would pray for allowing the present petition. 4. On the other hand, Mr. Anumeh Shrivastava, learned counsel for the respondents, would oppose the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner and submit that while the petitioner was posted as Branch Manager at Branch Chhuriya from 19.04.2021 to 21.11.2023 and from 19.03.2024 till the date of his retirement, he committed certain irregularities and, therefore, a show-cause notice was issued to him prior to his retirement. He would further submit that the petitioner was afforded due opportunity of hearing and, in pursuance thereof, he filed his reply to the show-cause notice. He would submit that a detailed enquiry was conducted by a Committee constituted by respondent No.1, whereafter the order of recovery was passed by respondent No.2. He would further submit that the petitioner never raised the grounds which have been raised in the instant writ petition and, therefore, the present petition deserves to be dismissed. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the records. 6. Admittedly, an order of recovery to the tune of Rs.5,57,045/- was issued against the petitioner by the respondent authority on 28.03.2025, prior to his date of retirement. It appears that a show- cause notice was also issued to the petitioner on 05.02.2025, to which he submitted his reply. Perusal of the reply would reveal that the petitioner had denied all the allegations levelled against him. 7. Perusal of the show-cause notice would further show that a decision was taken to conduct a departmental enquiry under the Rules, 1966 as well as the Regulations, 1962. Both the Rules and Regulations provide 4 for the procedure for imposing penalty upon a government servant or an employee. Rule 22(IV) of the Regulations, 1962 provides that no punishment shall be imposed on any employee without formal charges being framed against him and without giving him an opportunity to tender his explanation in writing, to examine the witnesses against him, if any, and to produce his defence. Rule 14 of the Rules, 1966 also provides for a detailed procedure for imposing penalty upon a government servant. 8. In the present case, though a show-cause notice was issued to the petitioner, no formal articles of charge were framed; the Disciplinary Authority failed to appoint an Enquiry Officer and Presenting Officer; the Disciplinary Authority further failed to examine the witnesses, particularly when the allegations were denied by the petitioner in his reply; and no enquiry report was submitted. Moreover, the enquiry had already been conducted by the Committee prior to the issuance of the show-cause notice. Thus, the respondent authorities have failed to comply with the mandatory provisions of law. 9. Having considered the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, the order of recovery dated 28.03.2025 (Annexure P/1) is unsustainable in law and is hereby quashed. However, the respondent authorities would be at liberty to initiate a departmental enquiry strictly in accordance with law, if so advised. 10. The amount, if any, recovered or adjusted from the petitioner pursuant to the impugned order shall be refunded to the petitioner forthwith. 11. The claim of the petitioner with regard to grant of leave encashment for 19 days shall be considered by the respondent authorities strictly in accordance with law, preferably within a period of 60 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 12. Accordingly, the present writ petition stands disposed of. Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge Jyoti